Key Points: - The court held that cognizance under Section 188 IPC requires a written complaint by the public servant concerned for contempt of their lawful order; a police report cannot serve as the complaint. (!) (!) - Section 195 CrPC bars taking cognizance of offences under Section 188 IPC unless there is a written complaint by the public servant concerned; police reports under Section 173 CrPC cannot be basis for cognizance in such cases. (!) (!) (!) - The petition is allowed; the complaint dated 25.02.2021 and the police report under Section 173 CrPC filed in FIR No. 150 dated 21.08.2020 are quashed, along with discharge orders and related proceedings. (!) - The case discusses that Section 144 CrPC promulgation and its relation to Section 188 IPC, emphasizing peaceful protest rights under Article 19, and that violation of Section 188 IPC requires a valid cognizable basis (written complaint). (!) (!) - The Chief Judicial Magistrate’s reliance on the police report for cognizance was found improper; sections and authorities cited emphasize mandatory written complaint. (!) (!) (!) - The order clarifies that the correct procedure is initiation by complaint under Section 190(4)(a) CrPC, not by police report under 173 CrPC, for cognizance in these matters. (!) (!) (!) - The Court references Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab and Saloni Arora v. State of NCT of Delhi regarding mandatory written complaint and cognizance rules under Section 195 CrPC. (!) (!)

What is the mandatory requirement of a written complaint by the public servant concerned for contempt of their lawful order before taking cognizance under Section 188 IPC?

What is the effect of a police report/Challan under Section 173 CrPC on cognizance for offences under Section 188 IPC in light of Section 195 CrPC?

What is the court's decision regarding quashing of FIR, police report, and discharge orders where cognizance was improperly taken under Section 188 IPC?